About your Search

20130211
20130211
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
secretary former senator chuck hagel at his confirmation hearing i think it is fair to say you gave him a real going over about his opposition about the iraq troop surge in 2007. let's take a look at that. >> were you correct or incorrect? yes, or no. >> my reference to -- >> can you answer the question, senator hagel. the question is were you right or wrong? >> chris: i got a question for you. how are you going to vote on the hagel nomination? >> we still have some more information but again that wasn't an academic discussion i was having with senator hagel. we were losing the war in 2006 and when the president came around president bush who i had been very critical of came around and sent david petraeus and the surge we succeeded in iraq. now, because of the obama administration actions afterwards we are losing and badly unraveling. the fact is if we hadn't done that more american lives would have been lost unnecessarily. so for then senator hagel to say well, he will let history be the judge. he was there and involved and i'm sure he is wrong and he knows he is wrong on the basis of
. chris: they go for the middle. >> chuck hagel went through some very tumultuous confirmation hearings for defense secretary which he hasn't been confirmed yet, hasn't even been voted out of the armed services committee. but leon panetta is having him say goodbye to his employees tuesday, this coming week. he's planning on getting out of there. he can stay after the goodbye but it's a big -- chris: to vote next week. >> interesting footnote on the debate whether to arm the syrian rebels. we now know last summer the c.i.a. director petraeus, secretary of state clinton denouncing secretary defense panetta and the joint chiefs said yeah, let's do it. in the fall after it was turned down, they red-teamed it to see what the effect would have been and their conclusion was it would not have been decisive if the u.s. had followed that program of arming rebels in part because the rebels already have so many weapons anyway, that's not their problem. chris: one thing i like about that story, it tells who makes the decisions. >> the reason it's happening -- chris: the president -- >> i'm ending tw
with the experience, judgment, and vision our troops deserve, chuck hagel. and since we are now just weeks away from the automatic cuts to federal spending, including defense, let me say this -- there is no reason, no reason for that to happen, putting our fiscal house in order calls for a balanced approach, not massive indiscriminate cuts that could have a severe impact on our military preparedness. so here today, for the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of all these men and women in uniform, and all their brothers and sisters in uniform that they represent, now is the time to act, for democrats and republicans to come together in the same spirit that leon panetta always brought to public service -- solving problems, not trying to score points, doing right for the country, not for any particular political agenda, sustaining our economic recovery, balancing budgets. leon knows something about it, but also maintaining the finest military in history. leon, this too will be part of your legacy, for no one has raised their voice as firmly or as forcefully on behalf of our troops as you have. you hav
, john brennan and for defense secretary, chuck hagel unless the president provides more information on the september 2012 attack on our consulate in benghazi, libya. listen to this. >> how could they say after panetta and dempsey said it was a terrorist attack that night, how could the president say for two weeks after the attack it was the result of a video? how could susan rice come on to show to say there is no evidence of a terrorist attack when sick tear of defense and joint chiefs knew that that night? i think that was a misleading narrative three weeks before our election. >> he is hanging onto this in a big way. joining me, kt mcfarland, fox news security analyst . what do you think he is saying, kt? >> what he is talking about is the most significant part. and that is the president had nothing to do with this. that the secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff now said at the beginning of this attack american embassy under attack, american ambassador gone missing they told the president and that was it. the president had nothing more to do with it. mart
the state of the union tomorrow. and we hope on wednesday and/or thursday we'll be able to finish the hagel nomination. mr. president, there's never in the history of the country ever been a filibuster on a defense secretary, and i'm confident there won't be on this one. but i'm told the committee will report this matter out tomorrow, and we will move this to the senate floor just as quickly as possible. and then we have coming in the near future -- we of course, we have to -- when we get back we'll try to complete the national security director, mr. brennan, and we'll do mr. lew, who will be the secretary of treasury. and of course we have -- we're going to have some votes this -- we'll line up this week as to what we're going do when we get back after the work period we're going to have at home for five days. so i look forward to a productive night. i hope we can complete these votes, because there's people who've worked very, very hard on this, not the least of which has been the presiding officer, the chairman of the judiciary committee, who has worked on this matter for a number of yea
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)